It's my opinion because I see MMA as just TMA with rules. If you want to learn to fight without rules, study a TMA. If you want to get good at fighting within and with maximimum benefit of the rules, train in a sport.

Why would a person train exclusively in boxing if they wanted to fight MMA (less rules then boxing)? Why would someone train MMA if their goal was self-defense (no rules)?

A boxer may do well in MMA, and an MMA guy may do well in self-defense. But if your goal is only self-defense why train for a sport? (unless you just like the sport)

Quote:I would say that these have less efficiency when trying to use them in a fight against fighters or more adept opponents.

Look at any karate tournament from point, to Kyokushin, to the more robust decendents of these in the K-1 Grand Prixs to kick boxing with MT rules. Round kicks are by far the most utilized. And there is a reason for that.

From my experience, the reason is an inadequate knowledge and appreciation of front kicks and other traditional techniques resulting from dilution. The front kick looks easy, but it is actually quite subtle. And it works in what I call the melee range - where sports fighters of all descriptions spend only fleeting, desperate moments.

Quote:Thrust punches and front kicks all require stabalized platforms from which to throw them and a target that is in front of the technique's performer. In particular, the front kick also requires a requisite distance to be used effectively. Closing the gap by the opponent jams the kick. When you add lateral movement and have less success in closing off the ring or the movement of the attacker, the angled power of round kicks give the performer more options and, I believe a higher hit rate than front kicks with less chance of being in a compromised position if your fron kick fails to land.

This is where we disagree most fundamentally. I don't think most martial artists today practise in what I call the melee range where front kicks and thrust punches come into their own. I have had no difficulty applying them in a loose/live environment and neither have any of my contemporaries. For that matter try Higaonna's or Chinen's dojos etc.

Quote:In this case the sister of the front kick seems to be used more often--the pushing kick--which has a quicker delivery and is used to create distance and set up subsequent attacks, but not necessarily as an end to itself as a hard front kick is used.

Quicker delivery? Yikes! In my opinion this is a misconception based on commonly accepted, but flawed analysis of human biomechanics (and assumptions based on the lack of front kicks in competition in the absence of particular, vital knowledge such as melee training). Compare video frames if you like. The snap generates much more speed than a leg lift. The "chamber" issue is a red herring in this regard - the snap lifts the leg faster counteracting any "speed benefit" of a straight leg lift (useless anyway).

In any event, both the teep even the teep requires a knee bend to produce a push. The "chamber" is the same. What is different is the distancing and penetration depth. Period. Oh - and the pushing kick is delivered much slower!

Quote: Why would a person train exclusively in boxing if they wanted to fight MMA (less rules then boxing)? Why would someone train MMA if their goal was self-defense (no rules)?

A boxer may do well in MMA, and an MMA guy may do well in self-defense. But if your goal is only self-defense why train for a sport? (unless you just like the sport)

Because those sports consistently develop functional skill for exactly the same thing that TMA is supposed to do - fighting. And does it quicker. There is virtually no functional difference between defending a punch from a MMA opponent or a punch from anyone else. The skill is the same.

Your argument rests on the dubious possibilty that non-practicable TMA skills would reliably be able to be implemented under pressure. Something that the early minimal-rules UFC's have shown to be unlikely.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Quote: Have they? What do you make of the fact that those early UFC's were highly stacked in the Gracie's favour? I mean something as simple as not having a Judo representative shows that.

Highly stacked? How do you figure? By allowing grappling at all? Strikers had very few restrictions - no fish-hooking, no eye gouges, no throat shots. That's about it from what I remember. I hardly call that "highly stacking" in the Gracie's favor.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Quote: From my experience, the reason is an inadequate knowledge and appreciation of front kicks and other traditional techniques resulting from dilution. The front kick looks easy, but it is actually quite subtle.

I will agree with you that I think the front kick is one of the hardest, if not the hardest kick to get down right. But there is still a problem with your anaylsis, I believe, and that is the conceit that the opponent is going to allow you to line up in front of him to apply the kick. We are just going to have to disagree here. In sparring with good, technical opponents, front kicks are used much less, not because people don't know how to do them, but simply they aren't allowed to do them when good defenses are applied; and this makes front kicks a less than optimal choice, generally, when sparring with lots of movement. Not to say you don't see them applied every once and awhile, just not as often as the round kick.

I would also reconsider this:

Quote: the reason is an inadequate knowledge and appreciation of front kicks and other traditional techniques resulting from dilution.

Not to be too abrupt here, this is dismissive in some sense and patronizing in another since you are generalzing about a large group with whom you may have little to no truck, despite your experience.

The early UFC fighters were still sport fighters. They may have had greater freedom of techniques but they could only execute what they practice.

If someones primary techniques are punching and kicking, no matter what style they practice or what targets they aim for, IMO they are sport focused. If someone squares off and starts to circle their opponent, IMO they are sport focused.

My experience leads me to believe that serious fighting techniques (TMA)come out of very close or clinch range (or ground). That is where the control is; where crippling (or worse) damage can be most easily inflicted.

If a skilled unethical TMA decides to fight in MMA without altering his techiniques, it would not take long before he would be banned from competition. The techniques to break a neck or throws that will dislocate someones knee may not be technically illegal but no one with a little morality would attempt it in competition.

You can't judge a TMA based upon what they can/have used in MMA any more then you can judge MMA based upon the standards of boxing. It would be like saying that MMA footwork doesn't work because you never see a boxer use it...

Quote:The early UFC fighters were still sport fighters. They may have had greater freedom of techniques but they could only execute what they practice.

What does that mean? Have you seen any of the early UFC's? Do you know that BJJ was developed as a street-fighting art in Brazil, and that the Gracies accepted many no-rules challenges before the UFC was ever brought about?

Quote:If someones primary techniques are punching and kicking, no matter what style they practice or what targets they aim for, IMO they are sport focused. If someone squares off and starts to circle their opponent, IMO they are sport focused.

This......is garbage, sorry.

Quote:My experience leads me to believe that serious fighting techniques (TMA)come out of very close or clinch range (or ground). That is where the control is; where crippling (or worse) damage can be most easily inflicted.

Again, have you seen any UFC's at all? MMA people specialze in clinch/ground.

Quote:If a skilled unethical TMA decides to fight in MMA without altering his techiniques, it would not take long before he would be banned from competition. The techniques to break a neck or throws that will dislocate someones knee may not be technically illegal but no one with a little morality would attempt it in competition.

This is BS conjecture. This assumes that these super-duper TMA techniques will work flawlessly every time. A ridiculous point to argue from. And again, you are just plain wrong. Anyone that watched Dan Severn spike Anthony Macis on his head - twice - would understand that MMA people can and have used "deadly force" on each other in the ring, making your argument moot.

Quote:You can't judge a TMA based upon what they can/have used in MMA any more then you can judge MMA based upon the standards of boxing. It would be like saying that MMA footwork doesn't work because you never see a boxer use it...

Actually, you can use competition as fair measure of effectiveness. What other way is there?

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

The "super-duper TMA techniques" will not work flawlessly. But a TMA fighter will have the goal to make them work, and sometimes they will.

To test effectiveness of TMA techniques, they do have to be tested against a resisting opponent. They have to be taken to the point just before causing serious damage, then released or at least loosened. In a MMA environment, this compassion may cost you the fight.

As far as "no rules challenges", there is/was no such thing unless the competitors are/were willing to go to prison.

IMO most serious (TMA) techniques come from ground or clinch/very close range, but just because something is a ground or clinch technique doesn't remove it from being a sport technique. This is defined by intent of the technique (hurt or maim/kill). MMA techniques are designed to hurt and result in a KO or submission. The same can be said for most punches and kicks.

I think this covers your points (in a random order).

I believe the main difference of opinion we have is that you don't believe there are effective techniques outside of what is used in MMA. I believe there are. Maybe someday we can meet and demonstrate our points. I am not sure there would be any other way to sway eachothers opinions. (And no, I'm not challenging you to a fight. No reason to get my butt kicked over some silly beliefs)

I’m gonna back up Matt on this one. The reason is that you are making an assumption here that can be false. That is to say that a BJJer or MMAist (or whomever) will exclusively study ‘sporting’ methods with exclusive sporting limitations. As a comparison using TMAs, is it the assumption that all who compete within sponsored kumite matches, say within karate, will endeavor to only practice those techniques allowed in the competition? Why would one think those only practicing BJJ or MMA would simply practice only sporting elements?

However, what one can compare between use of techniques, when looking at opponents, is how well they deliver them. And further, what constraints does a particular competition put on those techniques? For instance, if we just examine a punch….how is it different in application when used in competition, or for real in a defensive situation? The answer when you examine it is that there is no difference. The way you train application is how you will apply it, regardless of the circumstances to use the technique.

As far as using more sophisticated or dangerous, disallowed techniques….this is an up in the air question since they are not allowed. But they are not allowed in TMA sparring as far as I can tell either. And the justification for technical ability even within TMAs has been in sparring application up to the point of their ‘deadly’ use, and that is the same as MMA or any of the modern, sporting arts. Just that they seem to have a higher, proven record against TMAs in that arena.

Again, I personally don’t believe it’s the technical repertoire of any system, but more a way of training them for use.